Washington
Washington Squatters Rights and Adverse Possession Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 18, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Washington requires 10 years of continuous, open, and hostile possession to claim adverse possession under RCW 4.16.020. Three shorter 7-year routes exist: one for a claimant holding a connected title of record under RCW 7.28.050, one for a good-faith color-of-title holder who pays the taxes under RCW 7.28.070, and one for a color-of-title holder who pays the taxes on vacant and unoccupied land under RCW 7.28.080. Removal usually runs through an unlawful detainer action under RCW 59.12, but RCW 9A.52.105 lets a peace officer remove unauthorized occupants of residential property on a sworn owner declaration. Self-help removal by the owner is prohibited.
Verification note: Statutory periods confirmed against RCW 4.16.020, RCW 7.28.050, RCW 7.28.070, and RCW 7.28.080 via app.leg.wa.gov. Removal procedures confirmed against RCW 59.12.030, RCW 9A.52.105, and RCW 9A.52.115. Washington's peace-officer removal statute dates from 2017 (2017 c 284); no further expedited squatter-removal statute was enacted in Washington in 2024 or 2025.
Jurisdiction scope: This page covers Washington State law only. For a comparison of adverse possession periods and squatter removal procedures across all 50 states, see the national squatters rights guide.
Adverse Possession in Washington: The 10-Year and 7-Year Periods
Washington law gives a would-be adverse possessor several possible timelines, depending on the nature of the claimant's title documents, whether taxes were paid, and whether the land was occupied at all.
The 10-year base period (RCW 4.16.020)
The default rule comes from RCW 4.16.020, which sets a 10-year limitations period on actions for the recovery of real property. A person who occupies land for 10 continuous years without the owner's permission and who meets all five elements of adverse possession can bring a quiet-title action at the end of that period.
The 7-year track with connected title of record (RCW 7.28.050)
RCW 7.28.050 cuts the period to 7 years when the possessor has, in the words of the statute, "a connected title in law or equity deducible of record from this state or the United States," or from a public officer, sheriff, or other person authorized to sell the land for unpaid taxes or on execution. That is a materially stronger showing than color of title: the claimant must trace a recorded chain of title back to a recognized source, not merely hold a document that appears on its face to convey the land. If the claimant has such a connected title and maintains actual, open, and notorious possession for 7 successive years, an action to recover the land must be brought within 7 years after possession began. When the possessor acquires title after taking possession, the 7 years run from the date title was acquired.
The 7-year track with color of title and tax payment (RCW 7.28.070)
RCW 7.28.070 provides a parallel 7-year path aimed at a different situation, and this is the section that turns on color of title. Under it, a person in actual, open, and notorious possession under a claim and color of title made in good faith who also pays all taxes legally assessed on the property during the entire 7-year period is held and adjudged to be the legal owner at the end of that period. Successor owners who acquire the property by purchase, devise, or inheritance can tack their predecessor's possession and tax payments onto their own to satisfy the 7-year requirement, as long as possession and tax obligations remain uninterrupted.
The 7-year track for vacant and unoccupied land (RCW 7.28.080)
RCW 7.28.080 is the outlier, because it asks for no possession at all. Every person having color of title made in good faith to vacant and unoccupied land who pays all taxes legally assessed on it for seven successive years is deemed and adjudged the legal owner of that land, to the extent of the paper title. Persons who hold under the taxpayer by purchase, devise, or descent may continue paying the taxes to complete the seven-year term.
The section carries a proviso that defeats the claim. If a person with a better paper title to the same vacant and unoccupied land pays the assessed taxes for any one or more years within the seven-year term, the color-of-title taxpayer gets no benefit from the section at all. For a record owner, that makes simply paying the tax bill a complete answer to this route.
The five elements required in Washington possession-based claims
Whether the claimant relies on the 10-year track or on either of the possession-based 7-year tracks, Washington courts require proof of all five elements throughout the statutory period:
- Actual possession. The claimant must physically use the land in the manner a reasonable owner would use it, such as farming, landscaping, fencing, or building structures.
- Open and notorious possession. The use must be visible and obvious, putting the true owner on notice that someone is asserting a claim.
- Exclusive possession. The claimant cannot share possession with the true owner or with the general public.
- Hostile possession. The claimant must occupy the land without the owner's permission. Possession under a license or with the owner's consent does not satisfy this element.
- Continuous possession. The claimant must maintain possession without significant interruption for the entire statutory period. Brief absences that are consistent with normal ownership patterns do not break continuity.
If any element is missing for any portion of the statutory period, the clock resets and the claim fails.
Limits Washington Places on Adverse Possession Claims
Public land is off limits
RCW 7.28.090 provides that RCW 7.28.070 and RCW 7.28.080 "shall not extend to lands or tenements owned by the United States or this state, nor to school lands, nor to lands held for any public purpose." Occupying a piece of a state park, a school district parcel, a road right-of-way, or federally owned ground does not start either color-of-title clock. Anyone whose intended claim touches government-owned or public-purpose land should treat it as barred and get legal advice before spending money or making improvements on it.
The same section protects owners who cannot protect themselves. Where the person holding the title adverse to the possessor is under eighteen, under guardianship under RCW 11.130.265, or under conservatorship under RCW 11.130.360, that person has three years after the disability ends to bring an action to recover the land. For vacant and unoccupied land, that person may instead pay the possessor for betterments and taxes, with interest at the legal rate, within the same three-year window.
Forestland claims face a heightened standard
RCW 7.28.085 raises the bar sharply for claims against forestland owners. Where the party defending the claim owns twenty or more acres of forestland in Washington, the adverse claimant must establish the open and notorious element by clear and convincing evidence of substantial improvements that have remained on the land, entirely or partially, for at least ten years. The statute defines a substantial improvement as a permanent or semipermanent structure or enclosure whose construction costs exceeded fifty thousand dollars. A fence line, a trail, or seasonal use will not carry a claim under this section.
Winning can still cost the claimant money
RCW 7.28.083 lets a court order a party who prevails on an adverse possession claim to reimburse the record title holder for taxes or assessments the title holder paid on the property during the period of possession, and to pay taxes or assessments that came due after the claim was filed. Where the claim takes only part of a parcel, the court allocates the taxes between the property acquired and the property the titleholder keeps. The prevailing party in an adverse possession action may also request costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, which the court may award in whole or in part if it finds the award equitable and just after considering all the facts. None of this is automatic, but a claimant should not assume that a win is free.
How to Remove a Squatter in Washington
Washington gives an owner two lawful routes: a sworn declaration to law enforcement under RCW 9A.52.105, which fits many true squatter situations, and the court-supervised unlawful detainer process under RCW 59.12. What an owner may never do is remove the occupant personally. Self-help removal, which includes changing locks, removing the occupant's belongings, or shutting off utilities to force someone out, is illegal in Washington and exposes the owner to civil liability.
Route 1: Officer removal on a sworn declaration (RCW 9A.52.105)
Since 2017, Washington has had a statute that lets a peace officer clear an unauthorized occupant out of residential property without any court case. Under RCW 9A.52.105, where an officer has probable cause to believe a person is guilty of criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 for knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a building that is residential real property as defined in RCW 61.24.005, and the officer receives a declaration that meets the statute's requirements, the officer may remove the person from the premises, with or without arresting them, and order the person to remain off the premises or be subject to arrest for criminal trespass.
The declaration is a specific form set out in RCW 9A.52.115, signed under penalty of perjury. Among other things, the owner or authorized agent must swear that the occupants entered and remain unlawfully, that they were not authorized to enter or remain, that they are not and have not been tenants, or homeowners on title, within the last twelve months on the property, that a demand to vacate was made and refused, and that the premises were neither abandoned nor open to the public when they were entered. The form also warns that a false statement can create civil liability under RCW 4.24.355, acknowledges the tenant protections in RCW 59.18.230 and RCW 59.18.290, and includes an agreement to indemnify law enforcement acting in good faith.
The statute contains an important safeguard for the occupant. Before removing anyone, the officer must give the occupant a reasonable opportunity to secure and present any credible evidence that they are lawfully occupying the property, and must consider that evidence. In practice, that means this route is for genuine trespassers. An occupant who produces a lease, rent receipts, or other credible proof of tenancy pushes the matter back into landlord-tenant law, and the owner is then in the unlawful detainer track below.
Note also what this statute does not cover: it is limited to residential real property. Commercial buildings, bare land, and cases where the occupant has any tenant history in the past twelve months fall outside it.
Route 2: Unlawful detainer (RCW 59.12)
Where the declaration route does not fit, or where an officer declines to act, the owner uses the standard unlawful detainer process.
Step 1: Serve a written notice to vacate
Under RCW 59.12.030, a person who enters upon the land of another without permission and remains after receiving 3 days' written notice to vacate is guilty of unlawful detainer. The notice must be served in the manner specified in RCW 59.12.040, which allows personal service, service on a person of suitable age and discretion at the premises, or posting and mailing if no one is present.
If the squatter has any characteristics of a residential tenant, such as paying occasional rent or receiving mail at the property, the owner should also review the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act under RCW 59.18 before serving notice. Residential tenants receive longer notice periods under RCW 59.18.650, and a court may scrutinize whether an occupant qualifies as a tenant.
Step 2: File an unlawful detainer complaint
If the squatter does not vacate after the notice period expires, the owner files a complaint for unlawful detainer in the superior court of the county where the property is located. The complaint is governed by RCW 59.12.070. The court issues a summons requiring the defendant to appear and answer, typically within 7 to 30 days depending on the circumstances.
Step 3: Obtain a writ of restitution
After the hearing, if the court rules in the owner's favor, it issues a judgment and a writ of restitution under RCW 59.12.090. The writ directs the county sheriff to remove the occupant and restore possession to the owner. The sheriff carries out the actual removal; the owner does not do so personally.
No new expedited removal statute in 2024 or 2025
Several states passed expedited squatter-removal bills in 2024 and 2025. Washington was not one of them. Its officer-removal provision is older than that wave, dating to 2017. Owners who read about a brand-new fast-track law elsewhere should work from RCW 9A.52.105 and RCW 59.12 as they stand.
Document everything
Owners should photograph the property before and after occupation, keep records of any communications with the occupant, save utility and tax records, and retain copies of all legal notices served. These records become evidence in the unlawful detainer proceeding, in support of a removal declaration, and in any future quiet-title defense.
Legal disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Washington State law only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and individual circumstances vary. Consult a lawyer licensed in Washington before taking action on any adverse possession claim or squatter removal.
Page last reviewed: September 2026. Washington law only. For other states see the national squatters rights guide.
More Washington Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does a squatter have to stay in Washington to claim adverse possession?
The base period is 10 years under RCW 4.16.020. A claimant with a connected title of record can claim after 7 years under RCW 7.28.050. A claimant with good-faith color of title who pays all property taxes can also qualify after 7 years under RCW 7.28.070. A separate 7-year color-of-title and tax route under RCW 7.28.080 applies to vacant and unoccupied land and requires no occupation at all.
Does a squatter in Washington have to pay property taxes to claim adverse possession?
Tax payment is required under RCW 7.28.070 and RCW 7.28.080. Under both, the claimant must pay all taxes assessed on the property for the full 7 successive years. Under the 10-year track (RCW 4.16.020) and the connected-title 7-year track (RCW 7.28.050), tax payment is not a stated statutory requirement, though courts may consider it as evidence of hostile intent.
Can someone claim vacant land in Washington just by paying the taxes on it?
Only with color of title. RCW 7.28.080 says a person holding color of title made in good faith to vacant and unoccupied land who pays all taxes legally assessed on it for seven successive years is adjudged the legal owner to the extent of that paper title. Paying taxes on land you have no paper claim to does nothing. The section also has a proviso: if a person with better paper title pays the taxes for any one or more of those seven years, the taxpayer gets no benefit from the section.
Can a Washington property owner remove a squatter without going to court?
Sometimes, yes. RCW 9A.52.105 lets a peace officer remove unauthorized occupants of residential real property, with or without arrest, when the officer has probable cause of criminal trespass and receives the sworn declaration set out in RCW 9A.52.115. The owner must swear the occupants are not and have not been tenants or homeowners on title within the last twelve months, and the officer must first give the occupants a reasonable chance to present credible evidence of lawful occupancy. If that evidence appears, or if the property is not residential, the owner uses the unlawful detainer process under RCW 59.12 instead. What is never allowed is self-help: changing locks, removing belongings, or cutting utilities exposes the owner to civil liability.
How quickly can a Washington court remove a squatter?
After filing, the court issues a summons and schedules a hearing. If the court rules in the owner's favor, a writ of restitution is issued and the county sheriff carries out the removal. The process typically takes several weeks to a few months, depending on court scheduling and whether the squatter contests the action. The RCW 9A.52.105 declaration route can be far faster because it involves no court case, but it is limited to residential property and to occupants with no tenant history in the past twelve months.
Does a squatter in Washington have any rights?
An occupant who has been in possession long enough to satisfy the elements of adverse possession under Washington law has the right to bring a quiet-title action. During removal, an occupant has the right to contest an unlawful detainer action in court before being physically removed, and under RCW 9A.52.105 a peace officer must give the occupant a reasonable opportunity to secure and present credible evidence of lawful tenancy or occupancy before removing anyone.
Can you adversely possess state or city land in Washington?
RCW 7.28.090 provides that RCW 7.28.070 and RCW 7.28.080 do not extend to lands owned by the United States or by this state, to school lands, or to lands held for any public purpose. Occupying public ground does not start those clocks, and a claim touching government-owned or public-purpose property should be reviewed by a lawyer before any money is spent on it.
What notice does a Washington property owner need to give a squatter?
Under RCW 59.12.030, a squatter who entered without permission must receive at least 3 days' written notice to vacate before the owner can file an unlawful detainer action. If the occupant has characteristics of a residential tenant, longer notice periods under RCW 59.18.650 may apply. The separate RCW 9A.52.105 removal route requires that the owner already made a demand to vacate that was refused, sworn to in the declaration form.
Has Washington passed any new squatter removal law in 2024 or 2025?
No. Washington enacted no expedited squatter-removal statute in 2024 or 2025. It does already have a peace-officer removal provision, RCW 9A.52.105, but that dates from 2017. Owners work from that section and from the unlawful detainer process under RCW 59.12.
Updates
Corrected the removal guidance to cover RCW 9A.52.105, which lets a peace officer remove unauthorized occupants of residential property on a sworn owner declaration without a court judgment, fixed the opening description of the RCW 7.28.050 seven-year track, and added the vacant-land track (RCW 7.28.080), the public-land exclusion (RCW 7.28.090), the forestland standard (RCW 7.28.085) and the tax and attorney fee provisions (RCW 7.28.083).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 4.16.020Actions to be commenced within ten years—Exception.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
The period prescribed for the commencement of actions shall be as follows: Within ten years: (1) For actions for the recovery of real property, or for the recovery of the possession thereof; and no action shall be maintained for such recovery unless it appears that the plaintiff, his or her ancestor, predecessor or grantor was seized or possessed of the premises in question within ten years before the commencement of the action. (2) For an action upon a judgment or decree of any court of the United States, or of any state or territory within the United States, or of any territory or possession of the United States outside the boundaries thereof, or of any extraterritorial court of the United States, unless the period is extended under RCW 6.17.020 or a similar provision in another jurisdiction. (3) Of the eighteenth birthday of the youngest child named in the order for whom support is ordered for an action to collect past due child support that has accrued under an order entered after July 23, 1989, by any of the above-named courts or that has accrued under an administrative order as defined in RCW 74.20A.020(6), which is issued after July 23, 1989.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 142 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Highline applied the 10-year period to airport-noise inverse condemnation and remanded disputed damages. Roy allowed tacking through physical transfer despite the deed’s omission. Viewing evidence favorably to the Nickells, Nickell found possession complete before the greenbelt law and reversed summary judgment.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Highline School District No. 401 v. Port of Seattle (Washington Supreme Court 1976, 87 Wash. 2d 6)✓A school district alleged worsening airport noise damaged nearby schools. Applying RCW 4.16.020's 10-year prescriptive period, the court held evidence of increased operations and noisier aircraft created a fact issue about a new taking, and reversed dismissal of that claim.
- Roy v. Cunningham (Court of Appeals of Washington 1986, 46 Wash. App. 409)✓The Roys and predecessors treated land to an old fence as their own. The court held subjective boundary uncertainty did not defeat hostility and physical transfer permitted tacking despite the deed's omission, affirming adverse-possession title while remanding damages.
- Nickell v. SOUTHVIEW HOMEOWNERS ASS'N (Court of Appeals of Washington 2012, 167 Wash. App. 42)✓Viewing the Nickells’ landscaping evidence favorably on summary judgment, the court found adverse possession complete by June 1995. The 1997 greenbelt law and alleged silence did not defeat their claim; it reversed the association’s judgment and remanded.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type, Squatters Rights by State: Adverse Possession Laws (2026)
§ 7.28.050Limitation of actions for recovery of real property—Adverse possession under title deducible of record.In force
That all actions brought for the recovery of any lands, tenements or hereditaments of which any person may be possessed by actual, open and notorious possession for seven successive years, having a connected title in law or equity deducible of record from this state or the United States, or from any public officer, or other person authorized by the laws of this state to sell such land for the nonpayment of taxes, or from any sheriff, marshal or other person authorized to sell such land on execution or under any order, judgment or decree of any court of record, shall be brought within seven years next after possession being taken as aforesaid, but when the possessor shall acquire title after taking such possession, the limitation shall begin to run from the time of acquiring title.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Northlake Marine Works, Inc. v. City of Seattle (Court of Appeals of Washington 1993, 70 Wash. App. 491)“…19 by adverse possession under the connected title statute, RCW 7.28.050. The trial court also dismissed…”
- Gorman v. City of Woodinville (Washington Supreme Court 2012, 175 Wash. 2d 68)“…ree statutes of limitation: RCW 4.16.020, RCW 7.28.070, and RCW 7.28.050. In 1892, the first of these statutes w…”
- Harris v. Urell (Court of Appeals of Washington 2006, 133 Wash. App. 130)“…is whether the Wattses’ use was “open and notorious” under RCW 7.28.050 when Mike Watts first asked for and obt…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7.28.070Adverse possession under claim and color of title—Payment of taxes.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Every person in actual, open and notorious possession of lands or tenements under claim and color of title, made in good faith, and who shall for seven successive years continue in possession, and shall also during said time pay all taxes legally assessed on such lands or tenements, shall be held and adjudged to be the legal owner of said lands or tenements, to the extent and according to the purport of his or her paper title. All persons holding under such possession, by purchase, devise or descent, before said seven years shall have expired, and who shall continue such possession and continue to pay the taxes as aforesaid, so as to complete the possession and payment of taxes for the term aforesaid, shall be entitled to the benefit of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 42 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Harris v. Urell (Court of Appeals of Washington 2006, 133 Wash. App. 130)“…rough adverse possession under "good faith color of title," RCW 7.28.070; and (2) the statute of limitations and…”
- Peeples v. Port of Bellingham (Washington Supreme Court 1980, 93 Wash. 2d 766)“…adverse possession action at the end of the 7-year period. RCW 7.28.070. *773 The burden of p…”
- McCoy v. Lowrie (Washington Supreme Court 1953, 42 Wash. 2d 24)“…forth therein. Sections 3 and 4 of the act are codified in RCW 7.28.070 and 7.28.080. The latter section of the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 59.12.030Unlawful detainer defined.In force
Except as limited under RCW 59.18.650 relating to tenancies under chapter 59.18 RCW, a tenant of real property for a term less than life is liable for unlawful detainer either: (1) When he or she holds over or continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, of the property or any part thereof after the expiration of the term for which it is let to him or her. When real property is leased for a specified term or period by express or implied contract, whether written or oral, the tenancy shall end without notice at the expiration of the specified term or period; (2) When he or she, having leased property for an indefinite time with monthly or other periodic rent reserved, continues in possession thereof, in person or by subtenant, after the end of any such month or period, when the landlord, more than 20 days prior to the end of such month or period, has served notice (in manner in RCW 59.12.040 provided) requiring him or her to quit the premises at the expiration of such month or period; (3) When he or she continues in possession in person or by subtenant after a default in the payment of rent, and after notice in writing requiring in the alternative the payment of the rent…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 148 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Christensen v. Ellsworth (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 162 Wash. 2d 365)“…sen did not give Ellsworth the three day notice required by RCW 59.12.030(3). Whether the statutory notice was ti…”
- Foisy v. Wyman (Washington Supreme Court 1973, 83 Wash. 2d 22)“…declare the forfeiture of the lease, agreement or tenancy." RCW 59.12.030 provides: A tenant of real property f…”
- HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF EVERETT v. Terry (Washington Supreme Court 1990, 114 Wash. 2d 558)“…But respondent did not comply with the notice provisions of RCW 59.12.030(4) which require a 10-day opportunity t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 59.12.040Service of notice—Proof of service.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
Any notice provided for in this chapter shall be served either (1) by delivering a copy personally to the person entitled thereto; or (2) if he or she be absent from the premises unlawfully held, by leaving there a copy, with some person of suitable age and discretion, and sending a copy through the mail addressed to the person entitled thereto at the person's place of residence; or (3) if the person to be notified be a tenant, or an unlawful holder of premises, and his or her place of residence is not known, or if a person of suitable age and discretion there cannot be found then by affixing a copy of the notice in a conspicuous place on the premises unlawfully held, and also delivering a copy to a person there residing, if such a person can be found, and also sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant, or unlawful occupant, at the place where the premises unlawfully held are situated.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 42 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Christensen v. Ellsworth (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 162 Wash. 2d 365)“…he surrender of the detained premises, served (in manner in RCW 59.12.040 provided) in behalf of the person entit…”
- Hall v. Feigenbaum (Court of Appeals of Washington 2014, 178 Wash. App. 811)“…ion of law and fact, 15 which we review de novo. 16 ¶12 RCW 59.12.040 provides that [a]ny notice provided f…”
- Marsh-McLennan Building, Inc. v. Clapp (Court of Appeals of Washington 1999, 96 Wash. App. 636)“…exception because we find that under the plain language of RCW 59.12.040, the affidavits are competent proof of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Drops the Certified-Mail Rule for Eviction Notices as HB 2664 Takes Effect, Seattle Bans Pet Rent and Package Fees: What Takes Effect in 2027
§ 59.12.070Complaint—Summons.In force
The plaintiff in his or her complaint, which shall be in writing, must set forth the facts on which he or she seeks to recover, and describe the premises with reasonable certainty, and may set forth therein any circumstances of fraud, force or violence, which may have accompanied the forcible entry or forcible or unlawful detainer, and claim damages therefor, or compensation for the occupation of the premises, or both; in case the unlawful detainer charged be after default in the payment of rent, the complaint must state the amount of such rent. A summons must be issued as in other cases, returnable at a day designated therein, which shall not be less than seven nor more than thirty days from the date of service, except in cases where the publication of summons is necessary, in which case the court or judge thereof may order that the summons be made returnable at such time as may be deemed proper, and the summons shall specify the return day so fixed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 38 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Christensen v. Ellsworth (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 162 Wash. 2d 365)“…filing of the statutory summons and complaint. See former RCW 59.12.070 (1927), amended by Laws of 2005, ch.…”
- Canterwood Place L.P. v. Thande (Court of Appeals of Washington 2001, 106 Wash. App. 844)“…he return date on an unlawful detainer summons issued under RCW 59.12.070. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court…”
- Canterwood Place LP v. Thande (Court of Appeals of Washington 2001, 25 P.3d 495)“…he return date on an unlawful detainer summons issued under RCW 59.12.070. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 59.12.090Writ of restitution—Bond.In force
The plaintiff at the time of commencing an action of forcible entry or detainer or unlawful detainer, or at any time afterwards, may apply to the judge of the court in which the action is pending for a writ of restitution restoring to the plaintiff the property in the complaint described, and the judge shall order a writ of restitution to issue. The writ shall be issued by the clerk of the superior court in which the action is pending, and be returnable in twenty days after its date; but before any writ shall issue prior to judgment the plaintiff shall execute to the defendant and file in court a bond in such sum as the court or judge may order, with sufficient surety to be approved by the clerk, conditioned that the plaintiff will prosecute his or her action without delay, and will pay all costs that may be adjudged to the defendant, and all damages which he or she may sustain by reason of the writ of restitution having been issued, should the same be wrongfully sued out.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 34 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- IBF, LLC v. Heuft (Court of Appeals of Washington 2007, 141 Wash. App. 624)“…eneral and does not explicitly require show cause hearings. RCW 59.12.090. In contrast, the Residential Landlord-…”
- Arthur Skinner, Res/cross-app V. Incity Properties Holdings Inc, App/cross-res (Court of Appeals of Washington 2025)“…e damages. They assert this relief was an error of law, as RCW 59.12.090 provides relief in the form of “the pr…”
- Allen Watkins & Janis Clark, Appellant's V. Esa Management (Court of Appeals of Washington 2024)“…Y IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR WRIT OF RESTITUTION PURSUANT TO RCW 59.12.090 and RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 59.18.650Eviction of tenant, refusal to continue tenancy, end of periodic tenancy—Cause—Notice—Penalties. (Effective until January 1, 2028.)In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1)(a) A landlord may not evict a tenant, refuse to continue a tenancy, or end a periodic tenancy except for the causes enumerated in subsection (2) of this section and as otherwise provided in this subsection. (b) If a landlord and tenant enter into a rental agreement that provides for the tenancy to continue for an indefinite period on a month-to-month or periodic basis after the agreement expires, the landlord may not end the tenancy except for the causes enumerated in subsection (2) of this section; however, a landlord may end such a tenancy at the end of the initial period of the rental agreement without cause only if: (i) At the inception of the tenancy, the landlord and tenant entered into a rental agreement between six and 12 months; and (ii) The landlord has provided the tenant before the end of the initial lease period at least 60 days' advance written notice ending the tenancy, served in a manner consistent with RCW 59.12.040.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 44 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Amie Garrand, V Robin P. Cornett (Court of Appeals of Washington 2024, 550 P.3d 64)“…ng, to defend against the unlawful detainer as required by RCW 59.18.650(6)(b). Cornett also appeals the trial…”
- Gonzales v. Inslee (Washington Supreme Court 2023)“…statute that was suspended or limited, we note that RCW 59.18.650 squarely concerns landlords’ right to e…”
- Mark Brewer, V. Colleen Hill (Court of Appeals of Washington 2023, 525 P.3d 987)“…nt Act of 1973 (RLTA), ch. 59.18 RCW. The relevant statute, RCW 59.18.650(2)(i), allows owners or lessors sharing…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Landlord-Tenant Laws (2026): Deposits, Rent Cap, and Tenant Rights
§ 11.130.265Basis for appointment of guardian for adult.In force
(1) On petition and after notice and hearing, the court may: (a) Appoint a guardian for an adult if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (i) The respondent lacks the ability to meet essential requirements for physical health, safety, or self-care because the respondent is unable to receive and evaluate information or make or communicate decisions, even with appropriate supportive services, technological assistance, or supported decision making; (ii) Appointment is necessary to prevent significant risk of harm to the adult respondent's physical health, safety, or self-care; and (iii) The respondent's identified needs cannot be met by a protective arrangement instead of guardianship or other less restrictive alternative; or (b) With appropriate findings, treat the petition as one for a conservatorship under Article 4 of this chapter or protective arrangement under Article 5 of this chapter, issue any appropriate order, or dismiss the proceeding.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In the Matter of the Guardianship of: K.P. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2025)“…ead of guardianship or other less restrictive alternative. RCW 11.130.265(1)(a). Notably, “[t]he court may not es…”
- In Re Lucille W. Terwilliger (Court of Appeals of Washington 2026)“…ead of guardianship or other less restrictive alternative. RCW 11.130.265(1)(a). Additionally, a court order appo…”
- Shelley Erickson, V. Melanie Kelliainen (Court of Appeals of Washington 2026)“…I/7 (b) Subject to a guardianship under RCW 11.130.265 or adult subject to conservators…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 11.130.360Basis for appointment of conservator.In force
(1) On petition and after notice and hearing, the court may appoint a conservator for the property or financial affairs of a minor if the court finds by a preponderance of evidence that appointment of a conservator is in the minor's best interest, and: (a) If the minor has a parent, the court gives weight to any recommendation of the parent whether an appointment is in the minor's best interest; and (b) Either: (i) The minor owns funds or other property requiring management or protection that otherwise cannot be provided; (ii) The minor has or may have financial affairs that may be put at unreasonable risk or hindered because of the minor's age; or (iii) Appointment is necessary or desirable to obtain or provide funds or other property needed for the support, care, education, health, or welfare of the minor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In the Matter of the Guardianship of: K.P. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2025)“…15 No. 39788-2-III In re Guardianship of K.P. RCW 11.130.360(2). A determination by the trial court…”
- Shelley Erickson, V. Melanie Kelliainen (Court of Appeals of Washington 2026)“…11.130.265 or adult subject to conservatorship under RCW 11.130.360; or (c) Who has a deve…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 4.24.355Action by person removed from premises pursuant to RCW 9A.52.105—Damages, costs, attorneys' fees.In force
All persons removed from premises pursuant to RCW 9A.52.105 on the basis of false statements made by a declarant pursuant to RCW 9A.52.115 shall have a cause of action to recover from the declarant for actual damages, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
§ 61.24.005Definitions. (Effective until January 1, 2028.)In force
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (1) "Affiliate of beneficiary" means any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a beneficiary. (2) "Assessment" means all sums chargeable by the association against a unit, including any assessments levied for common expenses, fines or fees levied or imposed by the association pursuant to chapters 64.32, 64.34, 64.38, and 64.90 RCW or the governing documents, interest and late charges on any delinquent account, and all costs of collection incurred by the association in connection with the collection of a delinquent owner's account, including reasonable attorneys' fees. (3) "Association" means an association subject to chapter 64.32, 64.34, 64.38, or 64.90 RCW. (4) "Beneficiary" means the holder of the instrument or document evidencing the obligations secured by the deed of trust, excluding persons holding the same as security for a different obligation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 90 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage Group, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 2012, 175 Wash. 2d 83)“…t evidencing the obligations secured by the deed of trust.” RCW 61.24.005(2). ¶2 Judge John C. Coughenour of th…”
- Brown v. Department of Commerce (Washington Supreme Court 2015, 184 Wash. 2d 509)“…Gose, supra, at 96. The DTA defines the relevant parties. RCW 61.24.005(2), (3), (7), (16). In the transaction’…”
- Walker v. Quality Loan Service Corp. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2013, 176 Wash. App. 294)“…s facts sufficient to show that Quality and Select violated RCW 61.24.005(2) and former RCW 61.24.010(2) because…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7.28.080Color of title to vacant and unoccupied land.In force
Every person having color of title made in good faith to vacant and unoccupied land, who shall pay all taxes legally assessed thereon for seven successive years, he or she shall be deemed and adjudged to be the legal owner of said vacant and unoccupied land to the extent and according to the purport of his or her paper title. All persons holding under such taxpayer, by purchase, devise or descent, before said seven years shall have expired, and who shall continue to pay the taxes as aforesaid, so as to complete the payment of said taxes for the term aforesaid, shall be entitled to the benefit of this section: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, If any person having a better paper title to said vacant and unoccupied land shall, during the said term of seven years, pay the taxes as assessed on said land for any one or more years of said term of seven years, then and in that case such taxpayer, his heirs or assigns, shall not be entitled to the benefit of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McCoy v. Lowrie (Washington Supreme Court 1953, 42 Wash. 2d 24)“…the taxes so assessed if he desired to escape the effect of RCW 7.28.080; also, that if there be no requested se…”
- Campbell v. Reed (Court of Appeals of Washington 2006, 134 Wash. App. 349)“…for more than seven consecutive years under RCW 7.28.070 or RCW 7.28.080. We hold that because Campbell failed t…”
- Williams v. Striker (Court of Appeals of Washington 1981, 29 Wash. App. 132)“…W. Mericle, Jr. (Mericle) 1 under the vacant land statute, RCW 7.28.080. 2 *134 Striker purchased the two v…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7.28.083Adverse possession—Reimbursement of taxes or assessments—Payment of unpaid taxes or assessments—Awarding of costs and attorneys' fees.In force
(1) A party who prevails against the holder of record title at the time an action asserting title to real property by adverse possession was filed, or against a subsequent purchaser from such holder, may be required to: (a) Reimburse such holder or purchaser for part or all of any taxes or assessments levied on the real property during the period the prevailing party was in possession of the real property in question and which are proven by competent evidence to have been paid by such holder or purchaser; and (b) Pay to the treasurer of the county in which the real property is located part or all of any taxes or assessments levied on the real property after the filing of the adverse possession claim and which are due and remain unpaid at the time judgment on the claim is entered. (2) If the court orders reimbursement for taxes or assessments paid or payment of taxes or assessments due under subsection (1) of this section, the court shall determine how to allocate taxes or assessments between the property acquired by adverse possession and the property retained by the titleholder.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 66 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Joseph Workman v. Jerald F. Klinkenberg (Court of Appeals of Washington 2018, 430 P.3d 716)“…14 No. 77105-1-1/15 RCW 7.28.083(3) provides: The prevailing par…”
- Stuart Mccoll v. Geoffrey Anderson (Court of Appeals of Washington 2018, 429 P.3d 1113)“…erson. The court also awarded Anderson attorney fees under RCW 7.28.083(3), which gives the trial court discret…”
- Robert Sydow v. Douglass Properties, LLC (Court of Appeals of Washington 2026)“…e entitled to his reasonable attorney fees and costs under RCW 7.28.083, to be determined by the trial court.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7.28.085Adverse possession—Forestland—Additional requirements—Exceptions.In force
(1) In any action seeking to establish an adverse claimant as the legal owner of a fee or other interest in forestland based on a claim of adverse possession, and in any defense to an action brought by the holder of record title for recovery of title to or possession of a fee or other interest in forestland where such defense is based on a claim of adverse possession, the adverse claimant shall not be deemed to have established open and notorious possession of the forestlands at issue unless, as a minimum requirement, the adverse claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the adverse claimant has made or erected substantial improvements, which improvements have remained entirely or partially on such lands for at least ten years. If the interests of justice so require, the making, erecting, and continuous presence of substantial improvements on the lands at issue, in the absence of additional acts by the adverse claimant, may be found insufficient to establish open and notorious possession.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Acord v. Pettit (Court of Appeals of Washington 2013, 174 Wash. App. 95)“…land by adverse possession under the law in effect in 1984. RCW 7.28.085 did not take effect until June 11, 1998…”
- Eddie E. Acord, et ux v. Britton K. Pettit, et ux (Court of Appeals of Washington 2013)“…adverse possession under the law in effect in 1984. RCW 7.28.085 did not take effect until June 11,…”
- Proctor v. Huntington (Washington Supreme Court 2010, 169 Wash. 2d 491)“…pleted their improvements to the land. RP at 914-15 (citing RCW 7.28.085). Proctor sued before 10 years had elap…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7.28.090Adverse possession—Public lands—Adverse title in minors, persons under guardianship or conservatorship.In force
RCW 7.28.070 and 7.28.080 shall not extend to lands or tenements owned by the United States or this state, nor to school lands, nor to lands held for any public purpose. Nor shall they extend to lands or tenements when there shall be an adverse title to such lands or tenements, and the holder of such adverse title is a person under eighteen years of age, or has been placed under a guardianship under RCW 11.130.265 or has been placed under a conservatorship under RCW 11.130.360. However, such persons as aforesaid shall commence an action to recover such lands or tenements so possessed as aforesaid, within three years after the several disabilities herein enumerated shall cease to exist, and shall prosecute such action to judgment, or in case of vacant and unoccupied land shall, within the time last aforesaid, pay to the person or persons who have paid the same for his or her betterments, and the taxes, with interest on said taxes at the legal rate per annum that have been paid on said vacant and unimproved land.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kiely v. Graves (Washington Supreme Court 2012, 173 Wash. 2d 926)“…rest in the alley for use as a public thoroughfare and that RCW 7.28.090 precluded adverse possession of the all…”
- Paul Michel, Et Ano, V. City Of Seattle (Court of Appeals of Washington 2021, 498 P.3d 522)“…VERELLEN, J. — When the legislature enacted RCW 7.28.090, it shielded municipal “lands held for…”
- Erickson Bushling, Inc. v. Manke Lumber Co. (Court of Appeals of Washington 1995, 77 Wash. App. 495)“…anting partial summary judgment, the trial court noted that RCW 7.28.090, the general rule that adverse possessi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RCW 4.16.020 - Limitation of actions: Ten years(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 7.28.050 - Adverse possession: Seven-year period with connected title of record(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 7.28.070 - Adverse possession: Seven-year period with color of title and tax payment(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 59.12.030 - Unlawful detainer defined(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 59.12.040 - Service of notice(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 59.12.090 - Writ of restitution and bond(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 59.18 - Residential Landlord-Tenant Act(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 59.18.650 - Termination of tenancy: Notice requirements(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- RCW 9A.52.105 - Removal of unauthorized persons: Declaration, liability, rights(app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 9A.52.115 - Request to remove trespassers form(app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 7.28.080 - Color of title to vacant and unoccupied land(app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 7.28.090 - Exceptions: Public lands and persons under disability(app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 7.28.085 - Adverse possession of forestland: Heightened showing(app.leg.wa.gov)
- RCW 7.28.083 - Adverse possession: Reimbursement of taxes, costs and attorneys fees(app.leg.wa.gov)